10. Inequalities and criminal justice

Abstract

This chapter pulls together some of the issues mentioned in earlier chapters through a specific lens of inequality. The chapter highlights key areas of inequality in the criminal process by focusing on class, race and sex, but identifies intersections with a broader range of marginalised populations where information exists (and points to the need for research where the information does not yet exist). It discusses what we mean by inequality; key areas in which inequality in relation to class, race and sex manifest and intersect; inequity manifested in the criminal law; inequality as it manifests in policing; inequality as it manifests through sentencing; inequality experienced by victims; hate crimes; and ways that inequality could be reassessed and evaluated through discourses of rights and belonging.

‘Come on mate, let's make you a cup of tea’: Theorising materiality and its impacts on detainee dignity inside police detention

“…Third, this piece also demonstrates how materiality is implicated in detainee experiences of power in police custody and, by implication pain and injustice. Owing to the vastly unequal relationship between citizens and the state in criminal justice settings (Welsh et al, 2021), prison studies scholars have been quicker to recognise this power of things. As discussed at the outset, objects such as food and drink, are implicated in tussles over power between confinees and criminal justice actors.…”

“…Police custody is also a site of pain for those who enter, in which detainee vulnerabilities and resulting inequalities may emerge or increase as a result of their detention and the power exercised over them by the police (Dehaghani, 2021; Skinns, 2019; Welsh et al, 2021; Pemberton, 2008). Although it is not formally intended as punishment, it can be experienced as such, as a critical part of the ‘penal painscape’ (Skinns and Wooff, 2020; Harkin, 2015).…”

“…Although it is not formally intended as punishment, it can be experienced as such, as a critical part of the ‘penal painscape’ (Skinns and Wooff, 2020; Harkin, 2015). Police custody is also a site of (racialised) injustice, in which due process rights may be overlooked (Welsh et al, 2021), or people, especially those from minoritised groups, may be subject to the use of lethal force (Williams et al, 2023; Welsh et al, 2021; Angiolini, 2017; Athwal and Bourne, 2015; Razack, 2013; Pemberton, 2008). Therefore, we theorise how the material and the social impact detainee experiences, while also acknowledging that this socio-materiality arises in painful and dehumanising circumstances.…”

Exploring police culture and reform strategies post charing cross: Insights from the literature

“…There is also acknowledgement around the benefits of introducing diverse perspectives, as a way to problem solve and create innovation. However, it remains unclear how the police can increase diversity, when police attempts to recruit a more diverse workforce have been slow (Welsh et al, 2021). The answer therefore may lie with minority groups themselves, who may be better placed to provide reassurance to potential recruits, around the prevailing culture (Bhugowandeen, 2013).…”

The role of the judge in the European plea bargaining procedures: Three models compared

“…This being so, even the critics of plea bargaining now tend to acknowledge that the clock cannot be turned back and such institutions are here to stay (Ashworth, 2007; Hassemer, 2011: 197 f; Turner and Weigend, 2020: 421). The argument for abolishing plea bargaining and imposing a legislative ban on such practices is still being advanced in the comparative literature, however (Schulhofer, 1992; Stuckenberg, 2021; 193; Tonry, 2020; Welsh et al, 2021). In due consideration of such failed attempts in various jurisdictions (Cams and Kruse, 1992; Weninger, 1987), it has been generally recognised that the total abolition in and of itself would not be the end of the matter, for the judiciary would continue to follow its working assumptions instead of adhering to legislation or the restrictive guidelines formulated by the high courts on the ground that plea bargaining accommodates the professional interests of the lawyers and judges involved (Fezer, 2010; Jahn and Schmitt-Leonardy, 2020; Johnson and Hernandez, 2021: 88; Turner and Weigend, 2020: 421 f; Young and Sanders, 2000).…”